Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
I respectfully disagree, as most people whom are going to murder someone are more messed up in the head than influenced to do it. The influence of games would contribute in that factor, but only because the guy is highly influenced and highly disturbed.

You're assuming that all murders are coldly calculated far in advance, and not the result of poor impulse control. For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.

Actually, I was talking about the highly impressionable crazy people who think WWE is real and try to mimic the moves. A distinct minority, but I've met a guy who was the same with games.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.

This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.

*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.

This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.

*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.

Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.

This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.

*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.

Well to be fair, it's not going to be the easiest thing to prove or disprove given the extremely scattered variables involved. When you have X person who has committed a violent crime on impulse, you check their history and they have spent Y hours playing Mortal Kombat the last few months (assuming you're going to find out more than 'yes, they have played violent games') and what does that prove or disprove then?

You can't exactly know if someone would have committed the crime anyway even if they had not played X game. Hindsight only takes you so far. No, it's not something I can prove. However, I really do believe that video games (media in general, in fact) is something that's going to have some effect on our decisions, although obviously for far from all people, and said effect will naturally still be proportional to various other factors yada yada (ergo, no, I do not think that playing MK will make your average person into a criminal, however it's certainly possible that it might increase the risk, even if the percentage is only a teeny tiny bit). It simply makes zero sense for it not to. You can argue that it's never going to make the difference, but why is it never going to make a difference? How come that there is an invisible mental wall that prevents media from having an effect on people's decisions in Y subject when it demonstrably has an effect in X subject (ads)?

As said, we are impressionable creatures. There's a reason even supermarkets have distributed their wares in the building the way they have, even if we rarely consider it. If you spend lots of time around violence (such as media), you get more used to it, and it will seem less extreme over time even if you have far too much sanity to actually turn into crime. But when you are angry? When rage turns your vision red and the common sense leaves you? Can you really be so certain that what you have seen and done will not affect your decisions at that moment?

 illuknisaa wrote:
Also in how many games you can actually sexually assault something?

Fortunately, none.

I can easily see violence being justified for a protagonist, as violence can be justified in real life - to protect someone else.

However, I am having a difficult time seeing a way to justify a protagonist carrying out sexual assault.

Yes, Mortal Kombat is a thing, but I do not really think anyone wants a version of that game where violence is replaced with rape.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.

You have like a billion factors playing into trends of violence going up and down over the centuries, and I am not even going to try to dive into that mess - not that it is very relevant currently, either.

Edit: Just for additional clarification, I am not a paranoid extremist believing that exposing yourself to violent media will turn you into a murderer. But I do think it seems naïve and careless to dismiss any possibility of it having any effect whatsoever, and it does seem irrational when we know how much effect other types of media can have on other types of decisions.

 Ashiraya wrote:
[

 jreilly89 wrote:


Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.

You have like a billion factors playing into trends of violence going up and down over the centuries, and I am not even going to try to dive into that mess - not that it is very relevant currently, either.

Edit: Just for additional clarification, I am not a paranoid extremist believing that exposing yourself to violent media will turn you into a murderer. But I do think it seems naïve and careless to dismiss any possibility of it having any effect whatsoever.

We're not saying it doesn't have any effect, we're saying its grossly exaggerated. Like horribly grossly exaggerated. A lot of people who do really awful things are, secretly, really awful people. Books didn't make em do it. Neither do movies, the rap music, or GTA. They're just fethed up little monsters who grew into fethed up people.

Look at John Wayne Gacy or any other serial killer. All seemingly nice, well-adjusted people who went batgak crazy.

Honestly, human beings are naturally violent, which is fine when you have impulse control. Some people don't.

Who exaggerates it? I do not think I do. I hope.

I am not saying this is something that happens regularly and predictably, but I strongly suspect it might sometimes push someone that tiny bit over the edge. It's not so easy to blame 'some people' since even average joe can raise a fist in anger.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Speak for yourself. McD's forgot my fries and I screamed "FINISH HIM!!!" before freezing him and ripping his spine out

Oh God you too?

What's wrong with us...

Hey, I've done that too!

It still does not disprove anything, though. Or well, it disproves the assertion that you instantly turn into World Eaters if you try MK.

 Janthkin wrote:
This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.

*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.

Obviously you're never going to prove it because the situation is too complicated to analyze conclusively in hindsight and any experiment that would provide a definite answer would be incredibly unethical. But really, this shouldn't be very controversial. All it really says is that people can be influenced by things around them, and I don't think anyone has a plausible argument that we're each perfectly isolated bubbles of thought and are never influenced by anything outside our bubbles.

 jreilly89 wrote:
A lot of people who do really awful things are, secretly, really awful people. Books didn't make em do it. Neither do movies, the rap music, or GTA. They're just fethed up little monsters who grew into fethed up people.

Look at John Wayne Gacy or any other serial killer. All seemingly nice, well-adjusted people who went batgak crazy.

Yes, but the worst serial killers (and similar monsters) are hardly typical criminals. For every sadistic murderer like that there are countless other "desperate for drug money" or "wouldn't take 'no' for an answer" crimes, and those don't require major psychological issues.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
A lot of people who do really awful things are, secretly, really awful people. Books didn't make em do it. Neither do movies, the rap music, or GTA. They're just fethed up little monsters who grew into fethed up people.

Look at John Wayne Gacy or any other serial killer. All seemingly nice, well-adjusted people who went batgak crazy.

Yes, but the worst serial killers (and similar monsters) are hardly typical criminals. For every sadistic murderer like that there are countless other "desperate for drug money" or "wouldn't take 'no' for an answer" crimes, and those don't require major psychological issues.

Um, I disagree. Those "desperate for drug money" or "wouldn't take not for an answer" have some level of mental instability. Also, your typical criminals rarely play GTA or watch Roadhouse each weekend before going and committing crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Who exaggerates it? I do not think I do. I hope.

I am not saying this is something that happens regularly and predictably, but I strongly suspect it might sometimes push someone that tiny bit over the edge. It's not so easy to blame 'some people' since even average joe can raise a fist in anger.

I'm not saying you, I'm saying your own average media is often responsible for exaggerating these claims. Also, I highly doubt it would. There's a difference between raising a fist in anger and mugging or murdering people. Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability, I doubt mainstream media pushed them over the edge.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability

Source?

As far as I know, violence has a huuuuge amount of calculated unreported events.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability

Source?

As far as I know, violence has a huuuuge amount of calculated unreported events.

Not sure what you mean by unreported events, but by instability I mean violent crimes could be attributed to poverty, social factors, a bunch of other things before I'd reason violent video games or t.v.

I should make a game out of this. Read the first post in some random Off-Topic thread, then read the last post, and be amazed at how far the conversation has gone.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I should make a game out of this. Read the first post in some random Off-Topic thread, then read the last post, and be amazed at how far the conversation has gone.

Isn't Dakka Bingo sorta like that?

I'd argue that violent video games are popular because most of us have some level of violent tendencies. If this reasoning holds, it creates some rather disturbing conclusions about sexism in media.

If there's not many strong female characters in media because it "doesn't sell" I'd think that would be an impetus to investigate why that is the case, rather than throwing our hands in the air and whining about SJWs.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd argue that violent video games are popular because most of us have some level of violent tendencies. If this reasoning holds, it creates some rather disturbing conclusions about sexism in media.

If there's not many strong female characters in media because it "doesn't sell" I'd think that would be an impetus to investigate why that is the case, rather than throwing our hands in the air and whining about SJWs.

I would probably agree with both the violent and sexism tendencies as an opinion, but not as any sort of fact. My own opinion. I agree with it. Mostly because if the Romans taught us anything, it's that all of us love seeing a little blood spilled every now and again. Also, if you look at most things that are trying to pander to one sex, often times they put the other down. 300 for instance is a Manly Man's movie, and the only woman characters are prostitutes and the queen (Who trades her body for support). I'm not saying that the queen's actions were wrong, just that 300 was kind of one noted in it's portrayal of women. Then you have the flop of Halle Berry's Catwoman, where they are actively putting men down as idiots every chance they get while STILL being incredibly sexist towards women.



Why strong female characters don't sell is actually quite simple really; publishers don't think they sell, so they don't advertise, so the games don't sell.

I'm really tired with this pc crap. A lot of times people focus on pointless gak like can you edit character's nose or how homo can you be. Then you have people like this working in the industry:



I'd rather have 10 rapelay clones than a single order 1886.

What happened to making games? Why the "game" part of a game no longer important?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd argue that violent video games are popular because most of us have some level of violent tendencies. If this reasoning holds, it creates some rather disturbing conclusions about sexism in media.

If there's not many strong female characters in media because it "doesn't sell" I'd think that would be an impetus to investigate why that is the case, rather than throwing our hands in the air and whining about SJWs.

It might not be the violence that people are after. One of my musing is that violence is more like the wrapper we put around another fantasy to hold it and make it palatable in a way. Violent content can be used as a shot hand for your allowed to like it. (As odd as that sounds)

To look at why something doesn't sell you would want to look at the audience and that would get kind of sticky for gamers. 'i mean we get riled up when people talk about how they want to look at gender issues in our games. One can only imagine the fight back if you looked at gamers themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 illuknisaa wrote:
I'm really tired with this pc crap. A lot of times people focus on pointless gak like can you edit character's nose or how homo can you be. Then you have people like this working in the industry:

Spoiler:

I'd rather have 10 rapelay clones than a single order 1886.

What happened to making games? Why the "game" part of a game no longer important?

Why is that one picture? It looks very much like two different topics and two different pictures?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability

Source?

As far as I know, violence has a huuuuge amount of calculated unreported events.

here you go:http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/communitycrime/mental%20health%20and%20crime.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/communitycrime/mental%20health%20and%20crime.html for more stats go here : http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi438.html interestingly no matter what the media would have us believe schitzophenia seems to be medium to low on the scale.

JUst read the first 4 lines, that should source you everything you need to know. 4 times ia a big increase when you consider a factor of 20% of mental instability for the normal population at some point during their lives.

Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.

 Bullockist wrote:

Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.

Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.

Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.

Still, violence can lead to murder. One of the early signs of a psychopath is someone who likes to hurt animals. There's a difference between "Hey, you cut me off and I want to punch your face" and " I rape people in the dark and mug people in alleyways".

I'd say that those who get pushed over the edge by a video game were already pretty close to the edge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability

Source?

As far as I know, violence has a huuuuge amount of calculated unreported events.

here you go:http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/communitycrime/mental%20health%20and%20crime.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/communitycrime/mental%20health%20and%20crime.html for more stats go here : http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi438.html interestingly no matter what the media would have us believe schitzophenia seems to be medium to low on the scale.

JUst read the first 4 lines, that should source you everything you need to know. 4 times ia a big increase when you consider a factor of 20% of mental instability for the normal population at some point during their lives.

Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.

Thanks, Bullockist just what I was looking for.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.

Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.

Still, violence can lead to murder. One of the early signs of a psychopath is someone who likes to hurt animals. There's a difference between "Hey, you cut me off and I want to punch your face" and " I rape people in the dark and mug people in alleyways".

I'd say that those who get pushed over the edge by a video game were already pretty close to the edge.

Except for Lag.

Video Games don't cause violence, but Lag does

And spawn camping.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And spawn camping.

Bad form. But effective.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And spawn camping.

Bad form. But effective.

I have broken my keyboard twice in the last week.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And spawn camping.

Bad form. But effective.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.

Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.

Still, violence can lead to murder. One of the early signs of a psychopath is someone who likes to hurt animals. There's a difference between "Hey, you cut me off and I want to punch your face" and " I rape people in the dark and mug people in alleyways".

I'd say that those who get pushed over the edge by a video game were already pretty close to the edge.

Except for Lag.

Video Games don't cause violence, but Lag does

Especially in games like Street Fighter 4 and Dark Souls. Nothing is more aggravating than swinging at a guy, then the lag catches up, and you get backstabbed because he teleported. That makes me want to kill people.

Two words: Space Marine.

Thunderhammer sniping, I will never forget thee.

>> Videogame thread moved to Off Topic

Top tier moderating

I can't view spoiler images...was the image removed?

 Sigvatr wrote:
>> Videogame thread moved to Off Topic

Top tier moderating

I can't view spoiler images...was the image removed?

Well to be fair, it was going in the GG direction rather fast.